Biosocial Criminology and Gender - Criminal Justice

Biosocial criminology and gender examines how the genetic, hormonal, and neurodevelopmental evidence surveyed throughout Biosocial Criminology has been applied to explain the persistent and cross-culturally consistent sex difference in offending rates, and how this application has generated sustained critical engagement with feminist criminology’s sociologically oriented explanatory tradition. This article, situated within the broader Criminology Theories silo, examines the sex difference in offending as a distinctive biosocial research puzzle, hormonal and neurodevelopmental contributions to this difference, sex-differentiated heritability findings, feminist criminology’s historical and continuing critique of biological explanation, contemporary efforts toward biosocial-feminist theoretical integration, and the field’s ongoing work to move beyond predominantly male-centered biosocial research.

The sex difference in criminal offending, documented with remarkable cross-cultural and historical consistency, represents one of criminology’s most consistently documented empirical patterns and consequently one of biosocial criminology’s most theoretically significant test cases, since any comprehensive biosocial theory of crime must account for this pattern in some fashion. This article examines how biosocial criminology has approached this explanatory challenge, and how this approach has generated productive, if sometimes contentious, engagement with feminist criminology’s alternative sociological and structural explanatory framework.

This article proceeds through six sections: the sex difference in offending as a distinctive biosocial research puzzle, hormonal and neurodevelopmental contributions to this difference, sex-differentiated heritability and gene-environment interaction findings, feminist criminology’s historical and continuing critique of biological explanation, contemporary efforts toward biosocial-feminist theoretical integration, and the field’s ongoing work to move beyond predominantly male-centered biosocial research.

The Gender Gap in Crime as a Biosocial Puzzle

The Consistency of the Sex Difference in Offending

The sex difference in criminal offending, with men consistently and substantially overrepresented among offenders across virtually every crime category, cultural context, and historical period for which reliable data exists, represents among criminology’s most consistently documented and cross-culturally stable empirical patterns, a consistency that has motivated sustained theoretical attention across both sociological and biosocial criminological traditions (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Darrell Steffensmeier and Emilie Allan’s influential review of gender and crime research documented this pattern’s consistency across numerous societies and historical periods while cautioning that the magnitude of the sex difference varies considerably across specific offense types, with the difference proving most pronounced for violent offending and considerably more modest for some property and status offenses.

This cross-cultural and historical consistency has proven theoretically significant for biosocial criminology specifically, since a pattern this consistent across such varied social and cultural contexts suggests some contribution from biological factors relatively invariant across these contexts, complementing rather than necessarily displacing the substantial sociological explanation that differential socialization, opportunity structures, and social control patterns also provide for this same empirical pattern.

Why Biosocial Criminology Sought a Biological Contribution

Biosocial criminologists have argued that purely sociological explanations, while capturing genuine and substantial contributors to the sex difference in offending, cannot alone fully account for this pattern’s consistency across such widely varying social and cultural contexts, motivating biosocial criminology’s search for biological contributors that might explain at least part of this consistency independent of the specific social arrangements that vary considerably across the societies where the sex difference nonetheless persists (Ellis, 2005). This theoretical motivation parallels the broader biosocial criminology project examined throughout this category, seeking to identify biological contributions that complement rather than compete with sociological explanation for patterns that purely social explanation addresses incompletely.

Table 1. Explanatory Traditions for the Sex Difference in Offending

Tradition	Primary Explanatory Mechanism	Key Proponents	Relationship to Biosocial Criminology
Differential Socialization	Gender-differentiated childhood socialization	Traditional sociological criminology	Complementary; biosocial criminology does not deny this contribution
Opportunity Structure	Gender-differentiated access to criminal opportunity	Feminist criminology	Complementary; addresses structural rather than individual factors
Hormonal/Neurodevelopmental	Testosterone, brain development differences	Booth, Osgood, Ellis	Core biosocial contribution examined in this article
Heritability Differences	Sex-differentiated genetic contribution	Behavioral genetic researchers	Statistical evidence for differential biological contribution
Pathways Perspective	Trauma and victimization-driven pathways for women	Feminist criminology (Daly, Chesney-Lind)	Increasingly integrated with biosocial trauma research

Hormonal and Neurodevelopmental Contributions

Testosterone and the Sex Difference

Testosterone’s substantially higher average levels among men, examined in detail in the companion hormones and testosterone article, represents biosocial criminology’s most extensively theorized specific biological contributor to the sex difference in offending, with the challenge hypothesis and dual-hormone research examined in that companion article proposing that testosterone’s association with status-seeking and dominance behavior contributes to men’s disproportionate involvement in status-related and violent offending specifically (Booth & Osgood, 1993). This testosterone-based explanation does not claim that hormonal differences alone explain the full sex difference in offending, but rather proposes that average hormonal differences between men and women contribute one biological factor among the multiple biological and social factors that collectively produce the observed sex difference.

Archer’s meta-analytic research, examined in the companion testosterone article, found that testosterone’s modest overall association with aggression proved somewhat stronger for status and dominance-relevant behavior than for aggression broadly defined, a pattern with direct relevance for understanding the sex difference in offending specifically, since men’s higher average testosterone may contribute more directly to their disproportionate involvement in status-driven and dominance-related offending than to criminal behavior more generally defined (Archer, 2006).

Neurodevelopmental and Brain Structure Differences

Neuroimaging research has documented average structural and functional brain differences between men and women in regions relevant to emotional regulation and impulse control, examined in the companion brain structure article’s broader discussion of neuroimaging methodology, though researchers have emphasized that these average group differences show substantial overlap between the sexes and that their specific relevance to the sex difference in criminal offending remains considerably less well-established than the more extensively researched testosterone contribution (Raine, 2013). This neurodevelopmental research remains at a comparatively preliminary stage relative to hormonal research specifically, reflecting the broader methodological challenges that neuroimaging research faces in establishing sex-specific behavioral relevance beyond documenting average structural differences alone.

Heritability Differences Across Sex

Sex-Differentiated Heritability Estimates

Behavioral genetic research examined in the companion heritability studies and twin studies articles has occasionally found differing heritability estimates for antisocial behavior across sexes, though this sex-differentiated heritability research remains less extensive and less consistent than the broader heritability literature examined throughout this category, with some studies finding comparable heritability across sexes while others report modest differences whose interpretation remains genuinely contested (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Kyung Hwa Rhee and Irwin Waldman’s meta-analytic synthesis, examined in the companion heritability studies article, found generally comparable heritability estimates for antisocial behavior across sexes despite the substantial mean-level sex difference in offending rates, an important methodological distinction since heritability estimates address within-sex variance rather than between-sex mean differences, meaning that comparable heritability across sexes remains fully compatible with substantial average sex differences in offending.

Gene-Environment Interaction Differences by Sex

Some gene-environment interaction research, examined in the companion gene-environment interactions article’s discussion of the MAOA-maltreatment finding, has found that specific interaction effects differ across sexes, with some candidate gene by environment findings showing stronger or more consistent effects among male samples specifically, though this sex-differentiated interaction research faces the same broader replication challenges examined throughout the companion molecular genetics and gene-environment interactions articles (Caspi et al., 2002). This sex-differentiated interaction pattern, where established, would suggest that the biological mechanisms contributing to antisocial behavior risk may operate somewhat differently across sexes rather than through entirely identical pathways, an important theoretical nuance that contemporary research continues investigating.

Feminist Criminology’s Critique

Historical Wariness Toward Biological Explanation

Feminist criminology developed substantially in critical reaction against historical biological explanations of female criminality specifically, including Lombroso’s La Donna Delinquente, examined in detail in the companion Cesare Lombroso article, which attributed female criminality to atavistic gender deviance and extended atavism theory’s deterministic framework into explicitly gendered territory, establishing feminist criminology’s foundational wariness toward biological explanation of gender differences in crime (Gibson, 2002). This historical association between biological explanation and Lombroso’s gendered atavism theory, alongside the broader eugenic movement’s own gendered dimensions examined in the companion eugenics article, has shaped feminist criminology’s continuing critical stance toward contemporary biosocial explanations of the sex difference in offending.

The Pathways Perspective and Its Sociological Emphasis

The pathways perspective, developed substantially by Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind, proposes that women’s comparatively limited criminal involvement, and the specific pathways through which women who do offend become involved in crime, reflect distinctively gendered experiences of trauma, victimization, and economic marginalization considerably more than any biological difference, offering a sociologically grounded alternative explanatory framework that has generated sustained critical dialogue with the biosocial explanations examined earlier in this article (Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind’s influential framework specifically emphasized that women’s criminal offending frequently follows documented trauma and victimization experiences in ways that purely biological explanation does not adequately address, providing an important sociological counterpoint to biosocial criminology’s hormonal and neurodevelopmental emphasis.

This pathways research has documented specific empirical patterns, including high rates of childhood sexual abuse and intimate partner violence victimization among incarcerated women, that purely hormonal or neurodevelopmental explanation does not directly address, establishing an empirical foundation that any comprehensive account of women’s offending, whether primarily biosocial or primarily sociological in orientation, must ultimately incorporate.

Table 2. Biosocial and Feminist Criminological Perspectives Compared

Feature	Biosocial Perspective	Feminist/Pathways Perspective
Primary Explanatory Focus	Hormonal, neurodevelopmental, genetic differences	Trauma, victimization, structural marginalization
Key Historical Concern	N/A (contemporary framework)	Lombroso’s gendered atavism theory
Treatment of Sex Difference	Partly biologically grounded, interactive with environment	Primarily socially and structurally constructed
Policy Implication	Biosocial prevention and treatment	Trauma-informed, structural intervention
Contemporary Relationship	Increasingly seeking integration	Increasingly incorporating trauma-biology connections

Toward Biosocial-Feminist Integration

Reconciling Biological and Structural Explanation

Contemporary scholars have increasingly sought integration between biosocial and feminist criminological perspectives, proposing that biological factors including hormonal differences and structural and experiential factors including trauma and victimization operate jointly rather than as competing explanatory alternatives, applying the same interactive theoretical logic examined throughout this category’s broader treatment of gene-environment interaction to the specific question of gender and crime (Walsh & Beaver, 2009). This integrative effort parallels the broader productive theoretical integration pattern examined throughout this category, in which biosocial evidence achieves its most successful criminological integration by engaging productively with rather than simply opposing established sociological criminological traditions.

Trauma, Victimization, and Biosocial Pathways for Women

Contemporary research increasingly examines how trauma and victimization, central to the feminist pathways perspective examined earlier in this article, produce measurable biological consequences, including the epigenetic modification examined in the companion epigenetics article’s discussion of maltreatment-related glucocorticoid receptor changes, providing a specific mechanistic bridge between the pathways perspective’s trauma-centered explanation and biosocial criminology’s biological evidentiary tradition (McGowan et al., 2009). This trauma-biology connection illustrates a particularly promising integration pathway, since it demonstrates that the pathways perspective’s trauma-centered explanation and biosocial criminology’s biological evidence are not necessarily competing but may instead describe complementary aspects of a single underlying causal process, in which social experience produces measurable biological change that subsequently influences behavioral outcomes.

Contemporary Directions

Moving Beyond Male-Centered Biosocial Research

Biosocial criminology research has historically drawn disproportionately from male samples, reflecting both men’s higher offending rates providing larger available samples and researchers’ historical tendency to treat male offending as the default research focus, a sample composition bias that contemporary biosocial criminologists increasingly recognize as limiting the field’s capacity to understand female offending’s potentially distinct biosocial pathways (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). This male-centered research bias parallels, in gendered form, the ancestry-related sample composition concerns examined in the companion race, biology, and crime article, illustrating a recurring pattern in which biosocial research infrastructure’s historical development has generated systematic sample composition limitations requiring active contemporary correction.

Future Research on Gender and Biosocial Criminology

Future biosocial criminology research increasingly aims toward more balanced sex-representative research design and more explicit theoretical integration with feminist criminological insights regarding trauma, victimization, and structural marginalization, building on the trauma-biology integration examined earlier in this article toward increasingly comprehensive biosocial-feminist theoretical models (Walsh & Beaver, 2009). This continuing development suggests that biosocial criminology’s treatment of gender will likely continue evolving toward greater theoretical integration and more balanced empirical research design, addressing both this article’s documented historical limitations and the productive integration opportunities that contemporary trauma-biology research increasingly reveals.

Conclusion

Biosocial criminology and gender examines how biosocial evidence, particularly hormonal and neurodevelopmental research, has been applied to explain the persistent and cross-culturally consistent sex difference in offending, generating sustained critical engagement with feminist criminology’s alternative sociological explanatory tradition centered on trauma, victimization, and structural marginalization. This engagement has increasingly moved toward productive theoretical integration rather than persistent opposition, with contemporary trauma-biology research, including epigenetic evidence connecting victimization to measurable biological change, providing a specific mechanistic bridge between these historically distinct explanatory traditions.

This integration remains incomplete, with biosocial research’s historical male-centered sample composition and continuing questions regarding how biological and structural explanations should be weighted and combined representing genuine ongoing challenges rather than fully resolved questions. Understanding this evolving relationship between biosocial and feminist criminological perspectives provides essential context for evaluating contemporary and future research addressing gender’s role within the broader biosocial theoretical framework examined throughout this category.

References

Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: An evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.007
Booth, A., & Osgood, D. W. (1993). The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. Criminology, 31(1), 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01123.x
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851–854. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072290
Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828800089871
Ellis, L. (2005). A theory explaining biological correlates of criminality. European Journal of Criminology, 2(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370805054098
Gibson, M. (2002). Born to crime: Cesare Lombroso and the origins of biological criminology. Praeger.
McGowan, P. O., Sasaki, A., D’Alessio, A. C., Dymov, S., Labonté, B., Szyf, M., Turecki, G., & Meaney, M. J. (2009). Epigenetic regulation of the glucocorticoid receptor in human brain associates with childhood abuse. Nature Neuroscience, 12(3), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2270
Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. Pantheon Books.
Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 490–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.490
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.459
Walsh, A., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: New directions in theory and research. Routledge.